Benchmark: arguments join vs string concatenate

Script Preparation code:

function join() {
	return Array.prototype.join.call( arguments );
}
function concat() {
	var result = '';
	for ( var i = 0, il = arguments.length; i < il; i++ ) {
		result += arguments[ i ];
	}
	return result;
}
function concatSep() {
	var result = '';
	for ( var i = 0, il = arguments.length; i < il; i++ ) {
		result += arguments[ i ] + ',';
	}
	return result;
}
function concatSepSubstr() {
	var result = '';
	for ( var i = 0, il = arguments.length; i < il; i++ ) {
		result += arguments[ i ] + ',';
	}
	return result.slice( 0, -1 );
}

Tests:

join
join( 1, 2, '3', {}, true, null );
concat
concat( 1, 2, '3', {}, true, null );
concatSep
concatSep( 1, 2, '3', {}, true, null );
concatSepSubstr
concatSepSubstr( 1, 2, '3', {}, true, null );

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
join
concat
concatSep
concatSepSubstr

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in this benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark measures the performance of three different approaches to concatenate (join) strings:

1. `Array.prototype.join()`
2. A custom implementation with a loop (`concat()`)
3. Another custom implementation that adds commas and then slices off the trailing comma (`concatSepSubstr()`)

These implementations are being tested for their execution speed, specifically in scenarios where multiple arguments are passed to them.

**Options compared**

The options being compared are:

* `Array.prototype.join()`: a built-in JavaScript method that concatenates an array of strings into a single string.
* `concat()`: a custom implementation with a loop that concatenates multiple strings using the `+` operator.
* `concatSepSubstr()`: another custom implementation that adds commas between strings and then slices off the trailing comma to create the final concatenated string.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Array.prototype.join()**
	* Pros:
		+ Fast and efficient, since it leverages optimized C++ code.
		+ Easy to use and readable, as it's a built-in method.
	* Cons:
		+ May not be suitable for all scenarios, such as when the input array contains non-string values.
2. **concat()**
	* Pros:
		+ Customizable and flexible, allowing you to control the separator and other properties.
	* Cons:
		+ Slower than `Array.prototype.join()` due to the overhead of manual loop iteration.
3. **concatSepSubstr()**
	* Pros:
		+ Similar to `concat()` in terms of customizability and flexibility.
	* Cons:
		+ Even slower than `concat()`, since it adds extra work by inserting commas and then slicing off the trailing one.

**Library and syntax**

The `join()` method uses a built-in JavaScript library, which is part of the ECMAScript standard. This means that any compatible browser or environment can execute this code without requiring additional libraries.

There are no specific special JS features or syntax used in these implementations, as they rely on basic programming concepts like loops and string concatenation.

**Alternative approaches**

Other alternatives for string concatenation could include:

* Using template literals (e.g., `concat('hello', 'world')` instead of `+`)
* Utilizing a library like Lodash's `join()` function
* Implementing a custom string concatenator using a different algorithm or data structure

Keep in mind that the performance differences between these approaches will depend on the specific use case and environment.

In this benchmark, MeasureThat.net is interested in understanding how these three implementations compare in terms of execution speed, which can be useful for optimizing code in certain scenarios.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_3) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 67 on Mac OS X 10.13.3

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
join	1392115.4 Ops/sec
concat	4337927.5 Ops/sec
concatSep	2745338.0 Ops/sec
concatSepSubstr	2756846.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

arguments join vs string concatenate (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: join vs concat vs concatSep vs concatSepSubstr

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

join

concat

concatSep

concatSepSubstr

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):